The Democratic Candidates

Hi! · June 2019

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Hi! said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/politics/charlamagne-tha-god-warren-needs-to-acknowledge-native-american-claims-in-a-real-way/amp/
After Burnett noted that Warren's recent surge in national polls makes it seem like she has moved on from this issue, Charlamagne said that while that may be so right now, the Native American question will continue to dog the senator until she addresses it "in a real way."
"Eventually people are going to keep asking her about it until she acknowledges it in a real way," he said. "Meaning, ‘Hey. I did it, I was wrong. This is why I did it, I thought I could get ahead. And I learned my lesson from it.'"

I don't see why she shouldn't believe she was though if it was a story in the family she had heard from being a child. Many families has those kind of stories about family history. Mine has too.

If it was a lie - why would she take the test?T

I think it would be deniability. Not sure if that’s the right term, but yeah, let’s take the test to show we didn’t know.IDK
For the record, this doesn’t bother me, but when Trump is screaming Pocahontas! everyday, good luck.

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Hi! said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/politics/charlamagne-tha-god-warren-needs-to-acknowledge-native-american-claims-in-a-real-way/amp/
After Burnett noted that Warren's recent surge in national polls makes it seem like she has moved on from this issue, Charlamagne said that while that may be so right now, the Native American question will continue to dog the senator until she addresses it "in a real way."
"Eventually people are going to keep asking her about it until she acknowledges it in a real way," he said. "Meaning, ‘Hey. I did it, I was wrong. This is why I did it, I thought I could get ahead. And I learned my lesson from it.'"

I don't see why she shouldn't believe she was though if it was a story in the family she had heard from being a child. Many families has those kind of stories about family history. Mine has too.

If it was a lie - why would she take the test?T

I think it would be deniability. Not sure if that’s the right term, but yeah, let’s take the test to show we didn’t know.IDK
For the record, this doesn’t bother me, but when Trump is screaming Pocahontas! everyday, good luck.

Other than the base who would not leave Trump anyways, and @PJPOWER -- who cares about the "Pocahontas"-thing?

I don't feel like that thing ever really stuck anyways. Sleepy-Biden. Crazy-Bernie etc etc is kind of funny in its absurdness but calling someone Pocahontas wasn't "clever" enough anyways... I would think...

But who knows. It might come back with a vengeance from Trump.

Hi! · June 2019

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Hi! said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Hi! said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/politics/charlamagne-tha-god-warren-needs-to-acknowledge-native-american-claims-in-a-real-way/amp/
After Burnett noted that Warren's recent surge in national polls makes it seem like she has moved on from this issue, Charlamagne said that while that may be so right now, the Native American question will continue to dog the senator until she addresses it "in a real way."
"Eventually people are going to keep asking her about it until she acknowledges it in a real way," he said. "Meaning, ‘Hey. I did it, I was wrong. This is why I did it, I thought I could get ahead. And I learned my lesson from it.'"

I don't see why she shouldn't believe she was though if it was a story in the family she had heard from being a child. Many families has those kind of stories about family history. Mine has too.

If it was a lie - why would she take the test?T

I think it would be deniability. Not sure if that’s the right term, but yeah, let’s take the test to show we didn’t know.IDK
For the record, this doesn’t bother me, but when Trump is screaming Pocahontas! everyday, good luck.

Other than the base who would not leave Trump anyways, and @PJPOWER -- who cares about the "Pocahontas"-thing?

I don't feel like that thing ever really stuck anyways. Sleepy-Biden. Crazy-Bernie etc etc is kind of funny in its absurdness but calling someone Pocahontas wasn't "clever" enough anyways... I would think...

But who knows. It might come back with a vengeance from Trump.

I think every swing voter cares. It did stick, it was clever, and it will come back with a vengeance.

benjs · June 2019

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Here is Warren's explanation for the Republican thing. It really only further strengthens her position IMO.

"I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away."

You don't find it convenient that her move in the 90s is aligned perfectly with the populist times, when explained today? And how are her current proposals even close to free market conservative principles? I'd prefer to see some contemporaneous explanation, but I'm sure that doesn't exist.

No. And I actually feel like you are actively looking for reasons not to like Warren, to the point where you're just kind of making things up. Her political view evolved. That is a good thing. I'm not sure how you find something so negative here.

Sorry, but this would be an active reason to question the authenticity of any person - don't make this out like Warren is being singled-out. There is only too much information out there about Biden's convenient flipping of positions at couldn't-really-be-a-coincidence times. That's why I question his authenticity. Why should we not be allowed to state the same of other candidates?

mrussel1 · June 2019

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Here is Warren's explanation for the Republican thing. It really only further strengthens her position IMO.

"I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away."

You don't find it convenient that her move in the 90s is aligned perfectly with the populist times, when explained today? And how are her current proposals even close to free market conservative principles? I'd prefer to see some contemporaneous explanation, but I'm sure that doesn't exist.

No. And I actually feel like you are actively looking for reasons not to like Warren, to the point where you're just kind of making things up. Her political view evolved. That is a good thing. I'm not sure how you find something so negative here.

Sorry, but this would be an active reason to question the authenticity of any person - don't make this out like Warren is being singled-out. There is only too much information out there about Biden's convenient flipping of positions at couldn't-really-be-a-coincidence times. That's why I question his authenticity. Why should we not be allowed to state the same of other candidates?

Exactly right, this is the devil's advocate point I'm making here. As I've stated multiple times @Halifax2TheMax, I have no problem with politicians changing/evolving, but I do have a problem with attacks from the left against Biden's changed positions over the years. I'm simply pointing out that 1. politicians do that 2. It's okay to do that 3. the longer you're in politics, the more you should/would have changed and 4. it's legitimate to be skeptical that it's convenience vs an epiphany.

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

benjs said:

Why should we not be allowed to state the same of other candidates?

@PJ_Soul: ”I actually feel like you are actively looking for reasons not to like Warren, to the point where you're just kind of making things up.”

mrussel1 · June 2019

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

So let's all make note that politicians can adjust their policy stances.

But you that keep track om Queen E - What exactly has she changed in her beliefs, from going rep to dem?

Let's start with not believing in free market principles. None of her policy proposals are anchored in free market principles. How can someone switch parties in the 90's and have no change of views.

How’s that free market working for Crystal City and outside suburbs? Great if you own, not so much if you rent or are trying to buy. But hey, tax breaks and subsidies are fucking great for “free” markets.

What's wrong with Crystal City? And the prices inside the beltway have been outrageous for years, it has nothing to do with Amazon. It's simple supply and demand generated by the huge influx of companies that have government contracts. You could almost argue that government largess is the cause of the DC real estate and traffic issue of the last 25 years.
And BTW, I support many free market principles, just like the Warren of yore. But I'm not a laissez-faire Friedman guy. The question was asked about how Warren has changed, and I think it's fair to say she's no longer from the conservative economics school that evidently she once was.

Halifax2TheMax · June 2019

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

So let's all make note that politicians can adjust their policy stances.

But you that keep track om Queen E - What exactly has she changed in her beliefs, from going rep to dem?

Let's start with not believing in free market principles. None of her policy proposals are anchored in free market principles. How can someone switch parties in the 90's and have no change of views.

How’s that free market working for Crystal City and outside suburbs? Great if you own, not so much if you rent or are trying to buy. But hey, tax breaks and subsidies are fucking great for “free” markets.

What's wrong with Crystal City? And the prices inside the beltway have been outrageous for years, it has nothing to do with Amazon. It's simple supply and demand generated by the huge influx of companies that have government contracts. You could almost argue that government largess is the cause of the DC real estate and traffic issue of the last 25 years.
And BTW, I support many free market principles, just like the Warren of yore. But I'm not a laissez-faire Friedman guy. The question was asked about how Warren has changed, and I think it's fair to say she's no longer from the conservative economics school that evidently she once was.

More outrageous now than in the past because of amazon. And imagine the impact on LIC residents who are much more middle and lower income than folks already living in $700K+ houses? But Bezos should be given billions to relocate. Hell, after his divorce he could still drop $2BB and not bat an eye. It’s not like he’s building a 3,000 mile highway or railway or replacing JFK. But Warren doesn’t have any free market solutions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/13/amazons-hq-is-already-making-arlingtons-housing-prices-skyrocket/

mrussel1 · June 2019

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

So let's all make note that politicians can adjust their policy stances.

But you that keep track om Queen E - What exactly has she changed in her beliefs, from going rep to dem?

Let's start with not believing in free market principles. None of her policy proposals are anchored in free market principles. How can someone switch parties in the 90's and have no change of views.

How’s that free market working for Crystal City and outside suburbs? Great if you own, not so much if you rent or are trying to buy. But hey, tax breaks and subsidies are fucking great for “free” markets.

What's wrong with Crystal City? And the prices inside the beltway have been outrageous for years, it has nothing to do with Amazon. It's simple supply and demand generated by the huge influx of companies that have government contracts. You could almost argue that government largess is the cause of the DC real estate and traffic issue of the last 25 years.
And BTW, I support many free market principles, just like the Warren of yore. But I'm not a laissez-faire Friedman guy. The question was asked about how Warren has changed, and I think it's fair to say she's no longer from the conservative economics school that evidently she once was.

More outrageous now than in the past because of amazon. And imagine the impact on LIC residents who are much more middle and lower income than folks already living in $700K+ houses? But Bezos should be given billions to relocate. Hell, after his divorce he could still drop $2BB and not bat an eye. It’s not like he’s building a 3,000 mile highway or railway or replacing JFK. But Warren doesn’t have any free market solutions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/13/amazons-hq-is-already-making-arlingtons-housing-prices-skyrocket/

The tax breaks are NPV positive for the state. As a resident, I have no issues with them because the revenue generated will help our schools and continue to allow for highway dollars which is the single most important issue in Virginia over the past 15 years. We have traffic issues from NOVA down to Hampton Roads, and all points in between. You're conflating two issues which are not connected. Wherever Amazon chose to go, it would create a housing price boom. The only solution for that is not to pay their employees market value for what they contribute, which doesn't make any sense either.

Halifax2TheMax · June 2019

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

So let's all make note that politicians can adjust their policy stances.

But you that keep track om Queen E - What exactly has she changed in her beliefs, from going rep to dem?

Let's start with not believing in free market principles. None of her policy proposals are anchored in free market principles. How can someone switch parties in the 90's and have no change of views.

How’s that free market working for Crystal City and outside suburbs? Great if you own, not so much if you rent or are trying to buy. But hey, tax breaks and subsidies are fucking great for “free” markets.

What's wrong with Crystal City? And the prices inside the beltway have been outrageous for years, it has nothing to do with Amazon. It's simple supply and demand generated by the huge influx of companies that have government contracts. You could almost argue that government largess is the cause of the DC real estate and traffic issue of the last 25 years.
And BTW, I support many free market principles, just like the Warren of yore. But I'm not a laissez-faire Friedman guy. The question was asked about how Warren has changed, and I think it's fair to say she's no longer from the conservative economics school that evidently she once was.

More outrageous now than in the past because of amazon. And imagine the impact on LIC residents who are much more middle and lower income than folks already living in $700K+ houses? But Bezos should be given billions to relocate. Hell, after his divorce he could still drop $2BB and not bat an eye. It’s not like he’s building a 3,000 mile highway or railway or replacing JFK. But Warren doesn’t have any free market solutions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/13/amazons-hq-is-already-making-arlingtons-housing-prices-skyrocket/

The tax breaks are NPV positive for the state. As a resident, I have no issues with them because the revenue generated will help our schools and continue to allow for highway dollars which is the single most important issue in Virginia over the past 15 years. We have traffic issues from NOVA down to Hampton Roads, and all points in between. You're conflating two issues which are not connected. Wherever Amazon chose to go, it would create a housing price boom. The only solution for that is not to pay their employees market value for what they contribute, which doesn't make any sense either.

For the state but not for all the residents of the immediate area, particularly if they’re middle or lower income. I’m trying to understand your criticism of Warren because her solutions are not free market based yet you old Amazon up as some messiah but they’re not free market based either, as we see in NOVA and LIC. If Amazon was as free market as you seem to profess, Bezos would drop $2BB and reap the rewards. After all he’s just building a building and hiring people. Why does he get a pass on corporate socialism, to use Bernie’s term, and Warren gets criticized? Wouldn’t Warren’s investments also have payouts?

mrussel1 · June 2019

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

So let's all make note that politicians can adjust their policy stances.

But you that keep track om Queen E - What exactly has she changed in her beliefs, from going rep to dem?

Let's start with not believing in free market principles. None of her policy proposals are anchored in free market principles. How can someone switch parties in the 90's and have no change of views.

How’s that free market working for Crystal City and outside suburbs? Great if you own, not so much if you rent or are trying to buy. But hey, tax breaks and subsidies are fucking great for “free” markets.

What's wrong with Crystal City? And the prices inside the beltway have been outrageous for years, it has nothing to do with Amazon. It's simple supply and demand generated by the huge influx of companies that have government contracts. You could almost argue that government largess is the cause of the DC real estate and traffic issue of the last 25 years.
And BTW, I support many free market principles, just like the Warren of yore. But I'm not a laissez-faire Friedman guy. The question was asked about how Warren has changed, and I think it's fair to say she's no longer from the conservative economics school that evidently she once was.

More outrageous now than in the past because of amazon. And imagine the impact on LIC residents who are much more middle and lower income than folks already living in $700K+ houses? But Bezos should be given billions to relocate. Hell, after his divorce he could still drop $2BB and not bat an eye. It’s not like he’s building a 3,000 mile highway or railway or replacing JFK. But Warren doesn’t have any free market solutions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/06/13/amazons-hq-is-already-making-arlingtons-housing-prices-skyrocket/

The tax breaks are NPV positive for the state. As a resident, I have no issues with them because the revenue generated will help our schools and continue to allow for highway dollars which is the single most important issue in Virginia over the past 15 years. We have traffic issues from NOVA down to Hampton Roads, and all points in between. You're conflating two issues which are not connected. Wherever Amazon chose to go, it would create a housing price boom. The only solution for that is not to pay their employees market value for what they contribute, which doesn't make any sense either.

For the state but not for all the residents of the immediate area, particularly if they’re middle or lower income. I’m trying to understand your criticism of Warren because her solutions are not free market based yet you old Amazon up as some messiah but they’re not free market based either, as we see in NOVA and LIC. If Amazon was as free market as you seem to profess, Bezos would drop $2BB and reap the rewards. After all he’s just building a building and hiring people. Why does he get a pass on corporate socialism, to use Bernie’s term, and Warren gets criticized? Wouldn’t Warren’s investments also have payouts?

Yes, it puts Arlington, Alexandria and other areas inside the beltway out of reach for middle/lower class, which candidly has been that way for years. But as I said, I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist. I don't have a problem with tax breaks which are revenue positive vs NO revenue if you lose the deal. One could argue that states competing, using investments, tax structures and other levers as being the very definition of competition.
Regarding Warren's payouts, it's impossible to calculate what the effect would be on the economy, because you have to factor in the huge debt burden that it would impose on teh government or the slow down in the economy based on higher taxes, if you tried to make it revenue debt neutral. The argument they've made is that having the loss of debt would free the young people to 'buy cars and phones' is sort of silly. I'm 46 and if you gave me a free 50K, I'd generate more economic activity too. So why don't I get 50k off my mortgage or in straight cash?

cincybearcat · June 2019

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Jason P said:

College graduates are probably more likely to vote. I know I would vote for the Wig party if they essentially paid off tens of thousands in debt for me.

I dont think Warren comes off as someone that cynical. Even though i might not agree, Im sure she has a respactable reason for her ”plans”.

She isnt Joe ”lets write something up quickly” Biden or Donald ”Urukhai hear my call - your coal Jobs are the future and we will feast on elf flesh! Trump

Yes, she just flat takes Bernie's platform. And it may not be cynical, but it's absolutely pandering.

So you are saying she hasn’t been consistent through the years in her beliefs?

Not when she was a Republican. You know she was a Republican, right?

Yes.

But I once listened to Staind.

Therefore she hasn't been consistent her whole life. I have no issue with a politician changing their view. In fact it would concern me if anyone had the same views their whole lives. Warren is pandering to the youth vote just like Bernie did. It's politics.

Have you ever been against something or maybe indifferent but then paid attention, listened and understood the causes, and more importantly the effects, and changed your opinion? This bullshit political purity is what is killing both parties. I could give two shits if Biden plagerizes the green new deal and didn’t come up with it all on his own. He’ll try to implement it or a version of same. And in the end, what counts is that we try and not do nothing. Obama stole Obamacare from Hillary and repubs but who gives a shit? The problem with Bernie is that he equates “freedom” with having everything free or heavily subsidized with no policy or legislation to show for it. Give me Biden all day.
(see the e)

Yeah people can change their minds.

it is usually pretty obvious if it’s just bullshit political opinion and not a real change.

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

"Elizabeth Warren Answers Voter's Worry About Joe Biden"

https://youtu.be/RY4Plu_1Wk8

benjs · June 2019

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Jason P said:

College graduates are probably more likely to vote. I know I would vote for the Wig party if they essentially paid off tens of thousands in debt for me.

I dont think Warren comes off as someone that cynical. Even though i might not agree, Im sure she has a respactable reason for her ”plans”.

She isnt Joe ”lets write something up quickly” Biden or Donald ”Urukhai hear my call - your coal Jobs are the future and we will feast on elf flesh! Trump

Yes, she just flat takes Bernie's platform. And it may not be cynical, but it's absolutely pandering.

So you are saying she hasn’t been consistent through the years in her beliefs?

Not when she was a Republican. You know she was a Republican, right?

Yes.

But I once listened to Staind.

Therefore she hasn't been consistent her whole life. I have no issue with a politician changing their view. In fact it would concern me if anyone had the same views their whole lives. Warren is pandering to the youth vote just like Bernie did. It's politics.

Have you ever been against something or maybe indifferent but then paid attention, listened and understood the causes, and more importantly the effects, and changed your opinion? This bullshit political purity is what is killing both parties. I could give two shits if Biden plagerizes the green new deal and didn’t come up with it all on his own. He’ll try to implement it or a version of same. And in the end, what counts is that we try and not do nothing. Obama stole Obamacare from Hillary and repubs but who gives a shit? The problem with Bernie is that he equates “freedom” with having everything free or heavily subsidized with no policy or legislation to show for it. Give me Biden all day.
(see the e)

Yeah people can change their minds.

it is usually pretty obvious if it’s just bullshit political opinion and not a real change.

I'm no great fan of Canada's ex-PM, Stephen Harper, but he said something I found interesting. He mentioned that he doesn't trust emotionally expressive politicians, because in any political training he ever experienced or witnessed, they teach that explicitly to drive emotional appeal and to compel people to think less logically and more 'gut-based', so he talked about how it should be a red flag when questioning one's authenticity. My point in saying this, is that we should be cautious when assuming authenticity or inauthenticity, as there is a conscious effort to seem genuine by politicians; while from the other side of a TV screen, it's very hard to discern.

dignin · June 2019

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Here is Warren's explanation for the Republican thing. It really only further strengthens her position IMO.

"I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away."

You don't find it convenient that her move in the 90s is aligned perfectly with the populist times, when explained today? And how are her current proposals even close to free market conservative principles? I'd prefer to see some contemporaneous explanation, but I'm sure that doesn't exist.

No. And I actually feel like you are actively looking for reasons not to like Warren, to the point where you're just kind of making things up. Her political view evolved. That is a good thing. I'm not sure how you find something so negative here.

Sorry, but this would be an active reason to question the authenticity of any person - don't make this out like Warren is being singled-out. There is only too much information out there about Biden's convenient flipping of positions at couldn't-really-be-a-coincidence times. That's why I question his authenticity. Why should we not be allowed to state the same of other candidates?

Oh I don't know, because she changed her views before she was a politician almost 30 years ago?

Biden has changed his in the past year. Not even comparable.

mrussel1 · June 2019

dignin said:

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Here is Warren's explanation for the Republican thing. It really only further strengthens her position IMO.

"I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away."

You don't find it convenient that her move in the 90s is aligned perfectly with the populist times, when explained today? And how are her current proposals even close to free market conservative principles? I'd prefer to see some contemporaneous explanation, but I'm sure that doesn't exist.

No. And I actually feel like you are actively looking for reasons not to like Warren, to the point where you're just kind of making things up. Her political view evolved. That is a good thing. I'm not sure how you find something so negative here.

Sorry, but this would be an active reason to question the authenticity of any person - don't make this out like Warren is being singled-out. There is only too much information out there about Biden's convenient flipping of positions at couldn't-really-be-a-coincidence times. That's why I question his authenticity. Why should we not be allowed to state the same of other candidates?

Oh I don't know, because she changed her views before she was a politician almost 30 years ago?

Biden has changed his in the past year. Not even comparable.

How long do you have to wait after you change your views, before you verbalize them? Just asking what the rule is.

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

Oh... so it was a direct quote...

“I’ve worked so hard in my career that I promise you, if I’m elected president, you’re going to see the single most important thing that changes America: We’re going to cure cancer," Biden said to applause Tuesday at a campaign event in Ottumwa, Iowa.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447982-biden-says-as-president-he-wants-to-cure-cancer

cincybearcat · June 2019

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Oh... so it was a direct quote...

“I’ve worked so hard in my career that I promise you, if I’m elected president, you’re going to see the single most important thing that changes America: We’re going to cure cancer," Biden said to applause Tuesday at a campaign event in Ottumwa, Iowa.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447982-biden-says-as-president-he-wants-to-cure-cancer

Ok, seems silly. But then again I bet it seemed silly when it was said we’d put a man on the moon.

He obviously just means he is going to push for funding research and he believes a cure can happen.

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

One on one with Buddha

https://youtu.be/9LUI4EOGMq4

Spiritual_Chaos · June 2019

I'm getting so bored by Beto efter Buddaedgedge came into the race. Can't even watch interviews with him.

The Democratic Candidates

Comments

Categories